Elected Senate Reform?

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

With all due respect, the caracal kid, I completely disagree with what you said. I'll elaborate more tomorrow, but I've got to go to bed. :lol: Last-minute shopping, early tomorrow morning.

Good night, caracal and Finder, and happy holidays. I hope that this discussion continues to be just as lively tomorrow as it was today.

Happy holidays to both of you by the way. I have to work 4 12 hour shifts over the holidays... so ... yeah...

Man I just noticed my grammer in my last statment. Sorry about that, another problem with writing at work is you don't often have time to re-read.

Anyhow a Canadian is someone who lives in Canada.

Anyhow if you look up our system of government and regional governments you will already see we have already set in place a heavly regional systems. In how we elect all of our representives and appoint senators. We have provincial governments to look after the provinces with there own law making abilities. All they have to do is stay with in the constitution and they can do whatever they want. We also have local governments which unfortunitly are an act of the provincial regional governments again. The provincial governments already have tons of power. I don't see how making them into there own nation states in some kind of soviet union of Canada will benifit Canada.

If Alberta gets pissed off they won't have there way with some law they want passed you think they would stay? Or even Quebec in that matter? I highly doubt they would.

If you think we should splite up Canada you have a very good system there to put the nation into crisis and help speed up the end of confederation. But as a working Federal government, well it couldn't even be called a federal government.

If you can name me a nation which uses what you propose then I'll gladely look up whats happening there or what happend there in it's history and the benifits and draw backs to this system. But as far as I know I've never seen anything like this before except in alliances between nation states and city states. Perhaps like the Latin Legue, the Federal Socialist republics of Yugoslavia and perhaps a few Greek states on a smaller scale. But you have to remember here to with the Latin and Greek states when they were used in history they were used in a nation where everyone was basically the same. Canada on the other hand is a very large nation with many different people, with many different concerns with many different area's of concern. I doubt you could get 10 provinces to every agree on one thing. Thus having a centrialized Federal government based on representation from the regions is a must if you wish our confederation to work.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'll give you that, but I don't think so.

 

[zenfisher]

I don't live in Canada & I'm a Canadian.

 

[FiveParadox]

Requirements for Citizenship

For a particularly legal explanation of who is and who is not a Citizen of Canada, please refer to the Citizenship Act of Canada, which can be viewed at:

Click here to review the Citizenship Act.
Citizenship Act, Courtesy of the Ministry of Justice of Canada
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

That should clear up any confusion in terms of this sub-debate.

...

Returning to the subject at hand, the Senate of Canada does a lot of good in our democracy, and we should take whatever moderate reform is necessary, while still retaining the key components and characteristics of a Chamber of sober second thought thoroughly in tact, in order to enhance its effectiveness.

Perhaps the media is somewhat to blame for the "stagnant" reputation that the Senate has seemed to have picked up. The media rarely relays any of the work done in the Senate to the people of Canada, which is a shame because anyone who watches CPAC will know quite well that the Senate works extensively for the good of Canadians.

Where the House of Commons does not have the time or the resources to take up a study or research on a specific topic, the Senate can do so, and return a report to the Commons. Where a piece of legislation has been forced through the Lower House, the Senate can slow down the legislative process and delve into the legislation, clause-by-clause, considering all of the bill's possible ramifications.

We should be proud of the Senate, even if we do recognize the need for reform thereof. Our Senators should be more publicized; we should hear more from the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition in the Senate; we should hear more about the important research done there; we should hear more about the compelling debates that take place there, and we should hear more about our Senators.

We must remember that our Member of Parliament is not our only representative on the Hill; so, too, can we rely on our Senator to, if nothing else, hear us out and consider their options as a representative of the people.

Note Edited to resolve a display error and to update content.

 

[Finder]

Re: Requirements for Citizenship

For a particularly legal explanation of who is and who is not a Citizen of Canada, please refer to the Citizenship Act of Canada, which can be viewed at:

Click here to review the Citizenship Act.
Citizenship Act, Courtesy of the Ministry of Justice of Canada
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

That should clear up any confusion in terms of this sub-debate.

...

Returning to the subject at hand, the Senate of Canada does a lot of good in our democracy, and we should take whatever moderate reform is necessary, while still retaining the key components and characteristics of a Chamber of sober second thought thoroughly in tact, in order to enhance its effectiveness.

Perhaps the media is somewhat to blame for the "stagnant" reputation that the Senate has seemed to have picked up. The media rarely relays any of the work done in the Senate to the people of Canada, which is a shame because anyone who watches CPAC will know quite well that the Senate works extensively for the good of Canadians.

Where the House of Commons does not have the time or the resources to take up a study or research on a specific topic, the Senate can do so, and return a report to the Commons. Where a piece of legislation has been forced through the Lower House, the Senate can slow down the legislative process and delve into the legislation, clause-by-clause, considering all of the bill's possible ramifications.

We should be proud of the Senate, even if we do recognize the need for reform thereof. Our Senators should be more publicized; we should hear more from the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition in the Senate; we should hear more about the important research done there; we should hear more about the compelling debates that take place there, and we should hear more about our Senators.

We must remember that our Member of Parliament is not our only representative on the Hill; so, too, can we rely on our Senator to, if nothing else, hear us out and consider their options as a representative of the people.

Note Edited to resolve a display error and to update content.

When it comes to our debate it would appear we are only dating on the Senates mandate and who it is from. Thats why Senate reform is needed and I think most of us see that it does need reforming.

You also pointed out a good fact that the Senate even in it's condition it's in now which is sad, still does good work. I think what a lot of us are talking about now is improving on that work they already do and for a lack of better words give them a little bite, by giving a manadate by the people or the provinces.

I'm glade we don't have too many people out there who just wish to abolish the Senate. But I know a lot of NDPers, some liberals and even conservatives think we should just because they are a waste of money for an unelected seat of government. Thats why we have reform in the way of elected or provincial appointed senators and thats why one of the few good things coming out of Harpers mouth has been on this issue.

I respect where the Jack Layton is coming from on the issue of abolishing the Senate. We could do that and nothing much would change in Canada and the government right now. But as you can see and I have said myself and many other people have said, Canada is lucky to have been run by enlightend man and woman in the past who have nt overly abused the system. If we abolish the Senate and someone like Maurice Duplessis were to get into power as the PM I fear there would be nothing to stop him if there was no senate.

The problem with the current Senate if this fictional "Maurice Duplessis" got in, is that he would have the power to appoint senators. Removing the need for a Senate and any check or balance to the commons or this fictional "Maurice Duplessis". The Simple solution in the short run is to make a tradition of electing senators and then changing the constitution one day to reflect this. Or even just pass it into law one day. There's many things you can do on this issue to make it better. Just presidence alone can help.

Harper when he talks about this issue is pushing forward a good and responcible government agenda which I wish Layton, who is my canadate for now. would take up as well. But as I said before the Left does tend to drive the immportance of the Commons to the point of there being no check to the power of the commons.

 

[the caracal kid]

well, my "what is a canadian" question was more about identity than legality.

i was born and raised in canada so legally i cam classified a canadian citizen but i do not consider myself one. i am not represented by a charter that places its citizens under a mythical entity i do not believe exists or a head of state that represents inequality, tyranny, and suppression.

So, as much as l like my "home stomping grounds" on the coast, i enjoyed my years in Ont, love Quebec, and loath Alberta, i have nothing that makes me think i am canadian. I give considerable thought to moving away on an ongoing basis and before anybody resonds with the ever popular "if you don't like it, leave" maybe ask what is it about canada that leads me to feel this way.

 

[jimmoyer]

I give considerable thought to moving away on an ongoing basis and before anybody resonds with the ever popular "if you don't like it, leave" maybe ask what is it about canada that leads me to feel this way.
----------------------------caracal kid--------------------

There are some things we are powerless to
change no matter where we live or what job we have.

But we have power to adapt, to go around the
walls and obstacles that spring up where-ever we
work, where-ever we live

Don't take this as preaching since you know this
already.

I was just making that observation because what
dominates our outrage is what we read and this
non-stop bickering and criticism has an effect beyond
our ken to the point that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
VS. ENTITLEMENT (meaning somebody else owes us because damnit we earned it) little enters our discussion and debates.

Just a side angle, to your question about how
the Canadian "thing" affects you.

I'm sure you don't let it interfere, because that is
your responsibility to not let it.

And sure the laws always interfere, but then we
get back to the personal responsibility to adapt
and overcome the obstacles where-ever we live
and what-ever job we have.

Just throwing these thoughts out.

This doesn't mean there is no legitimacy to
the criticism of the laws of the land and of
the culture where-ever you live.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Elected Senate Reform

Five Paradox..you have some really good and interesting proposals on reform that maintain elements of our current system, but improve our weaknesses in a much more realistic and acheivable way. Much to consider for sure.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform

Five Paradox..you have some really good and interesting proposals on reform that maintain elements of our current system, but improve our weaknesses in a much more realistic and acheivable way. Much to consider for sure.

Fire Paradox has many good idea's about government and understands the workings of government as well. I think the idea's Paradox has are very sound and moderate.

 

[FiveParadox]

As posted earlier in another topic:

The following is a consolidated proposal regarding Senate reform, amended since my last post, keeping in mind some of the arguments that I have heard thus far.

First List

The Prime Minister shall draw up a list of eligible persons to be appointed to the Senate; the Speaker of the House of Commons shall transmit that list to the Legislature of the Province which the vacant seat in the Senate is to represent.

Second List

The Legislature shall, by a majority of voices, decide to either adopt the list in its entirety, reject the list outright (prompting the Prime Minister to create a new list), or propose amendments to the list. The Speaker of the Legislature shall soonafter transmit that second list to the Speaker of the House of Commons; if the first list had been defeated, then the list shall be "empty."

Negotiations

If the list proposed by the Legislature differs greatly from that proposed by the Prime Minister, then several subsequent lists may be transmitted between the Legislature and the House of Commons until the list is adopted in an identical form by both the Prime Minister and the Legislature.

Appointment and Ratification

The Prime Minister shall select one eligible person from the adopted list, and shall forthwith transmit his or her choice to the Legislature of the Province. The Legislature shall vote to either accept or reject the appointment. If the appointment is accepted, then the Lieutenant Governor and the Prime Minister shall jointly recommend to the Governor General that said person be appointed to the Senate. If the Lieutenant Governor in right of the Province does not provide his or her consent to the appointment, then the Governor General shall at all reasonable times avoid making the appointment.

Special Provisions

If a Province has been left with compromised representation in the Senate due to an unreasonably long period of negotiations, as brought to the attention of the Governor General by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province in question, then the Governor General shall have the right, from time to time, to take whatever steps may be necessary, including an executive order superceding the authority of either the Legislature of the Province or the House of Commons, to remedy the situation. (Note that this proposal assumes that Governors General and Lieutenant Governors receive a mandate through ratification of their appointments.)

 

[Finder]

As posted earlier in another topic:

The following is a consolidated proposal regarding Senate reform, amended since my last post, keeping in mind some of the arguments that I have heard thus far.

First List

The Prime Minister shall draw up a list of eligible persons to be appointed to the Senate; the Speaker of the House of Commons shall transmit that list to the Legislature of the Province which the vacant seat in the Senate is to represent.

Second List

The Legislature shall, by a majority of voices, decide to either adopt the list in its entirety, reject the list outright (prompting the Prime Minister to create a new list), or propose amendments to the list. The Speaker of the Legislature shall soonafter transmit that second list to the Speaker of the House of Commons; if the first list had been defeated, then the list shall be "empty."

Negotiations

If the list proposed by the Legislature differs greatly from that proposed by the Prime Minister, then several subsequent lists may be transmitted between the Legislature and the House of Commons until the list is adopted in an identical form by both the Prime Minister and the Legislature.

Appointment and Ratification

The Prime Minister shall select one eligible person from the adopted list, and shall forthwith transmit his or her choice to the Legislature of the Province. The Legislature shall vote to either accept or reject the appointment. If the appointment is accepted, then the Lieutenant Governor and the Prime Minister shall jointly recommend to the Governor General that said person be appointed to the Senate. If the Lieutenant Governor in right of the Province does not provide his or her consent to the appointment, then the Governor General shall at all reasonable times avoid making the appointment.

Special Provisions

If a Province has been left with compromised representation in the Senate due to an unreasonably long period of negotiations, as brought to the attention of the Governor General by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province in question, then the Governor General shall have the right, from time to time, to take whatever steps may be necessary, including an executive order superceding the authority of either the Legislature of the Province or the House of Commons, to remedy the situation. (Note that this proposal assumes that Governors General and Lieutenant Governors receive a mandate through ratification of their appointments.)

I think that sounds very goood. It could become a Parlimentary tradition, and not even need a law passed. Of course I think to safe guard what you have just said you would need to pass a law. I do believe the constitution would have to be amended though for a law to be passed and upheld on this and safe guarded?

But I think starting the tradition and trying it out before making it into law would be good as well.

 

[FiveParadox]

It would only take some initiative!

I formulated my suggestion intentionally in such a way so as to make constitutional or legislative reform, or new legislative measures, unnecessary. I think that reform would be far easier without changing the "legal" aspect of any of our current statutes.

All that my proposal would take is the initiative of one Prime Minister, and a Governor General and Lieutenant Governor willing to more directly involve themselves in politics if needed.

 

[Finder]

Re: It would only take some initiative!

I formulated my suggestion intentionally in such a way so as to make constitutional or legislative reform, or new legislative measures, unnecessary. I think that reform would be far easier without changing the "legal" aspect of any of our current statutes.

All that my proposal would take is the initiative of one Prime Minister, and a Governor General and Lieutenant Governor willing to more directly involve themselves in politics if needed.

*nods*
I likie
You have some really good idea's. A little less radical then mine and I can never stop myself from going into more then one matter at a time because I always wish to fix things. You should think about drawing this all out and then making it puplic and sending it to the party leaders and seeing if they spark some interest in it.

Personally I know I'm shooting to get onto the citizens assembly for electoral reform when it comes out.

 

[cyberclark]

Alberta, long thinking this was the answer to their problems has run a list of extreme right wing candidates for senate opportunity. All possibles are members of the Fraser Institute. I think an elected senate would be more problem than what we have.

Having said that, how do you get the present senate which as the same powers as parliment, to do it's job?

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

Alberta, long thinking this was the answer to their problems has run a list of extreme right wing candidates for senate opportunity. All possibles are members of the Fraser Institute. I think an elected senate would be more problem than what we have.

Having said that, how do you get the present senate which as the same powers as parliment, to do it's job?

An Elected Senate wouldn't have the same job as the Lower house. But generally would have the mandate to do what the Senate is suppoesed to do now. Really all the Senate is now is a rubber stamp.

Also the Senators from Alberta could always be conservative but who doesn't say that would be offset by soem NDP Senators from bc and some Liberals from Ontario, some bloq from quebec and so on and so forth. If this was done properly by the Federal government in accepting senators too from the provinces and asking them to do so, it wouldn't just be a novilty thing which Alberta had done.

"Having said that, how do you get the present senate which as the same powers as parliment, to do it's job?"

Just for educational purposes, the Senate is already apart of Parliment, so, yeah it wouldn't effect the job being done by Parliment at all.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E

 

[FiveParadox]

In my proposal, remember, it would be a negotiation process. The Legislature wouldn't be able to pull off nominating all candidates of radical policies, because the Prime Minister would like disagree. And keep in mind that if the Special Provisions were required to be invoked, I would expect the Governor General to come up with some reasonable compromise.

 

[FiveParadox]

In relation to "getting Senators to do their jobs," I think that the media is to blame, as are Canadians, for the sorry state our Senate of Canada has found itself in (in addition to the problem of a somewhat illegitimate mandate). Canadians need to communicate with their Senators.

I wonder how often the average Canadian contacts their Senator regarding matters that are important to them. Most people know who their Member of Parliament is, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of Canadians would respond with something along the lines of "Huh?" if asked who their Senator was.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

In relation to "getting Senators to do their jobs," I think that the media is to blame, as are Canadians, for the sorry state our Senate of Canada has found itself in (in addition to the problem of a somewhat illegitimate mandate). Canadians need to communicate with their Senators.

I wonder how often the average Canadian contacts their Senator regarding matters that are important to them. Most people know who their Member of Parliament is, but I'm willing to bet that a majority of Canadians would respond with something along the lines of "Huh?" if asked who their Senator was.

you can't totally blame the media. The current senate at the appointment of the PM is kind of pointless as it just reflects the PM's views and supports him. So I'm glade the Senate doesn't do anything right now as it is an undemocratic institution.

 

[FiveParadox]

In relation to a request to respond to a proposal made by Finder in a debate about Canadian sovereignty, regarding reform in our electoral system for the House of Commons, I'd like to respond here; let's consider this topic, henceforth, on "Parliamentary reform" rather than "Senate reform."

Now, this, unfortunately, would require Constitutional reform; which, as we all know, is a very controversial and difficult matter. Very few amendments to the Constitution have been successfully adopted.

It is important, in my opinion, that we ensure that whatever system we adopt remains functional. It would do us no good to reform our electoral system, only to find ourselves with fractured minority Governments unable to co-operate with the Opposition. I think we've all had enough of that during this Thirty-eighth Parliament.

Therefore, I propose a "compromise," of sorts, between the first-past-the-post and the mixed list systems. We need to ensure that majority Governments are still occasionally possible, and that the minority Governments that do occur are still functional, while both better representing the people.

Firstly, in terms of first-past-the-post, I like this system. It means that every citizen of Canada has one specific Member of Parliament with whom they can engage in a dialogue regarding issues that are important to them. For any electoral reform to work as expected, we need to ensure that Canadians make use of this important connection, and that we are willing to make our Members aware of the issues important to us.

However, I will concede that this system has, as time goes on, demonstrated to fail its essential purpose; that is, accurately represent the will of Canadians in the House of Commons.

In order to ensure stability in Government, and to ensure that each Canadian has a Member of Parliament with whom a regular dialogue in a local setting is possible, I would propose that the House of Commons remain three-quarters elected by the first-past-the-post system.

Each electoral district will need to be somewhat expanded in order to make this possible, and the number of Members of Parliament for each Province would change (based on current representation) to the following:

Alberta, 21
British Columbia, 27
Manitoba, 11
New Brunswick, 8
Newfoundland and Labrador, 5
Northwest Territories, 1
Nova Scotia, 8
Nunavut, 1
Ontario, 80
Prince Edward Island, 3
Québec, 56
Saskatchewan, 11
Yukon, 1
Total FPTP Representation, 233

The remaining 75 seats would be comprised of Members elected to the House of Commons through a "mixed list" system. Members of parties which are represented in the House of Commons by less than their popular vote would be appointed to the House, perhaps by the Leader of the Party in question or his or her caucus, until that party's representation in the House matches as close as is reasonably possible in the Commons. Any party with at least one percent of the popular vote would be guaranteed to be given at least one seat in the House.

This would more immediately benefit smaller parties, and would cease the practice of "discriminating," for lack of a better term, smaller parties and their supporters.

As to whether Mixed List Members would have all of the same rights and prerogatives as Elected Members, I'm not sure. That could require some further debate.

 

[the caracal kid]

i agree with the need for every citizen to have a representative they can directly access.

however, turning the HOC into a mish-mash in one way undermines the equality of each person having the same "voice" (even though we know that we really don't have that equality anyway).

That is why i think a house that is for the debate of the people should be a free body, FPTP elected, that allows each member to represent his/her riding. It should have party (gov-opp) structures stripped from it, and governance placed into a chamber that governs/directs policy which submits policy to the free house body for debate and vote.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Elected Senate Reform?

In relation to a request to respond to a proposal made by Finder in a debate about Canadian sovereignty, regarding reform in our electoral system for the House of Commons, I'd like to respond here; let's consider this topic, henceforth, on "Parliamentary reform" rather than "Senate reform."

Now, this, unfortunately, would require Constitutional reform; which, as we all know, is a very controversial and difficult matter. Very few amendments to the Constitution have been successfully adopted.

It is important, in my opinion, that we ensure that whatever system we adopt remains functional. It would do us no good to reform our electoral system, only to find ourselves with fractured minority Governments unable to co-operate with the Opposition. I think we've all had enough of that during this Thirty-eighth Parliament.

Therefore, I propose a "compromise," of sorts, between the first-past-the-post and the mixed list systems. We need to ensure that majority Governments are still occasionally possible, and that the minority Governments that do occur are still functional, while both better representing the people.

Firstly, in terms of first-past-the-post, I like this system. It means that every citizen of Canada has one specific Member of Parliament with whom they can engage in a dialogue regarding issues that are important to them. For any electoral reform to work as expected, we need to ensure that Canadians make use of this important connection, and that we are willing to make our Members aware of the issues important to us.

However, I will concede that this system has, as time goes on, demonstrated to fail its essential purpose; that is, accurately represent the will of Canadians in the House of Commons.

In order to ensure stability in Government, and to ensure that each Canadian has a Member of Parliament with whom a regular dialogue in a local setting is possible, I would propose that the House of Commons remain three-quarters elected by the first-past-the-post system.

Each electoral district will need to be somewhat expanded in order to make this possible, and the number of Members of Parliament for each Province would change (based on current representation) to the following:

Alberta, 21
British Columbia, 27
Manitoba, 11
New Brunswick, 8
Newfoundland and Labrador, 5
Northwest Territories, 1
Nova Scotia, 8
Nunavut, 1
Ontario, 80
Prince Edward Island, 3
Québec, 56
Saskatchewan, 11
Yukon, 1
Total FPTP Representation, 233

The remaining 75 seats would be comprised of Members elected to the House of Commons through a "mixed list" system. Members of parties which are represented in the House of Commons by less than their popular vote would be appointed to the House, perhaps by the Leader of the Party in question or his or her caucus, until that party's representation in the House matches as close as is reasonably possible in the Commons. Any party with at least one percent of the popular vote would be guaranteed to be given at least one seat in the House.

This would more immediately benefit smaller parties, and would cease the practice of "discriminating," for lack of a better term, smaller parties and their supporters.

As to whether Mixed List Members would have all of the same rights and prerogatives as Elected Members, I'm not sure. That could require some further debate.

well you can't really mix FPTP with Mixed, as Mixed is Already FPTP/PR or FPTP/STV or PR/STV or MSTV/FPTP blah.

FPTP has it's places in Canadian society, yes. But so many people are not represented in our current multi party system. FPTP does not work right for a multi party system. Even in a Two party system I'm not a big fan of it.

BUT at the same time like you and many other people who push for STV, FPTP or mixed oppsed to those Democrats and populists who push for pure PR, I think PR does lack the whole MP tied to a location. I think both sides can agree the pro's for both sides are good and it's making a comprimise with the cons here. Thats why I think mixed is the best system.

You can't tell me Paradox you havn't talked to people who say they're not voting because they know there vote just won't count?

Hell I feel that way. My vote won't count and if I wasn't so big into a politics I wouldn't even dream of voting because for me this election casting my vote will be the biggest waste of my time because I know the Liberal Ken Dryden will win for sure. So for people like me and for others who won't even have represention in this next parliment like the greens, if we did change the system to even a mixed electoral system they would have some kind of stack even though it is still small to the amount of votes casted by the people, but at least there would be a voice and hopefully keep these ppl interested in politics. you have to see where I'm coming from on this issue and why I won't budge on Mixed, opposed to pure PR or pure FPTP

On your proposal I think the amount of PR sets are pretty small. I've seen reports on a mixed system proposal (the system canada may most likely go to) with PR seats from about 75-150. I prefer 100 seats to make it simple. If you get 5% of the vote, like the green party the greens would get five seats for sure in parliment. That would means they had still been screwed by the system because pure PR would have given them about 17 seats, but at least they have a voice, were FPTP would have given them nothing.

Though at least you appear to see some kind of need for more representation in parliment. I don't think you are convinved on the benifits of having both FPTP and PR in our system as a mixed electoral system. It would change government very little. We'd still have almost the same parliments but it would give more people inclusion in politics and could bring more interest in politics. WHICH we really need right now. FPTP biggest weakness in it's pureist form is exclusion.